Dr Bob, maybe a pneumatic head wrap tool that pumped up and released would help a brain injury to heal…increase the cerebrospinal fluid flow. Maybe it could be combined with pemf in some way. Please invent this. It could be made to be sensitive to the natural cerebrospinal flow and just enhance it.
Hi Karen, it sounds like it is probably a good Idea, but I don’t know if I could invent it. Just for reference, each of the products I have invented took more than a decade of work, study, development, and experiment. Committing to the development of a new product is about the same as committing to getting a dog, a very expensive one that needs a lot of attention and resources… now that I think of it, it’s more like committing to getting a horse.
I gave this idea to a craniosacral therapist. I also suggested that he might want to team up with you. Maybe he will run with it.
I got a tbi in 1976. There is tremendous suffering with brain decay. Your pemf combined with a home hyperbaric chamber and craniosacral therapy has helped me to make a ton of headway. Just something to consider. Horrible suffering with brain decay. Maybe you could pass this idea on to someone younger who has more years and energy to develop it.
is there any scenario where you’d be good to even supportive of providing a utility license to build something that Karen is suggesting? if so, it sounds like anyone outside of this community and familiar usage of your tech would need some selling to to get familiar with pemf and be willing to put in the time effort and capital to do so.
Sure. I could be very supportive of anyone who wants to incorporate my technology (I have several different ones, not just ICES-PEMF). @OptimalHealth, you are correct, and it is only the rare individual that is willing to put in the work and resources to do anything like this.
I have been to this rodeo, as they say, many times, so for me to work with anyone, the ground rules are:
1- They need to be high-integrity good people. I do not work with bad people.
2- Their intended application must be for the general good. I discourage the use of my (or any) technology in products of low utility, low quality, or low value. I discourage misrepresentation and over-pricing, and any other form of abuse.
3- Their continued use of my technology is based on performance. Many people have tried to license and then tie-up my technology to make it unavailable to anyone. This is actually a fairly common trick: 77% of all licensed patents in the United States become “blocking patents”, where a company licenses them but does not actually use them or develop them, to prevent the technology from entering the market for one (bad) reason or another.
4- Any licensee must accept my terms for the retraction of the license (sometimes called “claw-back”). This could be non-performance, abuse, misrepresentations, failure to comply with specific terms of the agreement.
5- Generally I begin with non-exclusive licenses. Exclusivity has an opportunity cost. For example, it prevents anyone else from licensing and developing a product that might be viewed as infringing while the first “exclusive” licensee is getting their act together. But too bad: I generally grant exclusivity only when a group demonstrates performance as agreed.
6- Any license will be for a very limited scope of use. I never license any technology for all possible applications, only for those which are defined for an intended product. If the licensee is terrific and demonstrates the capacity to do more, then we can discuss widening the scope of a license.
7- Any license must not interfere with my current products in any way. I will not sell out and leave ya’ll hanging just to make a few quick bucks.
2 Likes
perfect… here’s a starting criteria for people who are willing to put up the risk to develop something useful for the greater good!
That’s the key to filtering out most of the bad actors: if they are unwilling to carry the risk and cost of their own venture, they are not worth talking to IMO.
1 Like
Woulnt have to combine pemf with the pneumatic hood. Just need a sensor to sense the patient’s cerebrospinal fluid flow, and pulse the pneumatic hood with that.
Technical things are always much more complicated than anyone thinks at first. I could give you many examples, but here are just a few:
What kind of sensor would you use to sense cerebrospinal flow?
– No hand waiving, be extremely specific: what sensor, how is the physiologic data collected, processed, interpreted, etc.
What is the phase relationship between the flow pulse and PEMF pulsing?
– Just sorting this out would take about 18 months of human studies
These are just two examples right up front, but I could easily think of twenty more technical details that would take weeks or months to work out and cost tens of thousands of dollars or more.
Also: who will develop the product? Test it, refine it, manage the manufacturing, supply chain, distribution, assess the regulatory and intellectual property landscape, develop customer education and product support…?
This is not impossible, but it would take several people working on it full time for a year or two to make anything more than a crude prototype.
If someone wants to try to make this product, once again I would be supportive**, so long as they meet the basic criteria I list in my earlier post, they provide the funding, do the work, and carry the risk.
** My technical support would not be insignificant: Depending on the scope of the planned product, I could save them a year or two of development and a million $ or more. Is this an overstatement? No, not at all. Already just this year I have done this twice for other medical technology products for other companies.
This is what I do professionally. I have been through this process many times. What I have outlined in this post and the earlier ones on this topic are the basic requirements if someone wanted to develop a product using PEMF + any kind of physiological measurement and output synchronization.
1 Like